"Star Trek Into Darkness" and the Politically Correct Villain (SPOILERS)

I recently wrote a mixed, but positive review of the new Star Trek movie, Into Darkness.  I saw it again in IMAX, and found that I liked it much better the second time around.  I think that this was partly because I found the extra-large IMAX image brighter than the standard size projection I saw it on the first time out (it was filmed with IMAX cameras so maybe something got lost in the transfer).  Secondly, I already knew the main spoiler so I went in more open minded.  I was still disappointed in the choice of villain, but not aggressively so as when I saw the big reveal for the first time.  It is what it is, so I just went with it and enjoyed the ride.  Nonetheless I still have problems with the choice to reconstitute an enemy from the past, and here's why...


If you haven't seen Star Trek: Into Darkness yet this is your warning: SPOILERS ARE FOLLOWING.


Through the first part of the movie the Enterprise crew thinks that they are after John Harrison, a Star Fleet officer turned terrorist.  Once he is captured he reveals his true identity to be Khan Noonien Singh, a genetically engineered superman from Earth's distant past who had been preserved in a cryogenic state for centuries, secretly reawakened to assist a rogue Star Fleet admiral (Peter Weller).  The character first appeared in the Star Trek Season One episode Space Seed.  He was brought back in the 1982 movie The Wrath of Khan, widely thought of as the best of the first generation Trek films. My visceral reaction against the "New Khan" is not simply that I think recycling an old character like they did is lazy, which in this case it is, but more because the new version bares little resemblance to the original beyond a name and the most superficial elements of his back story.   This is a different villain, and should have been treated as such.  The way I see it they wanted the name, but not what they may have perceived to be the politically incorrect baggage that goes with it, and in the process neutered one of the most literate and compelling "bad guys" in the history of mainstream commercial entertainment.

Ricardo Montalban as Khan (1967)

Khan, originally played by the late Ricardo Montalban, is one of the most vivid, colorful characters to inhabit the Star Trek universe.  In his present incarnation, played by Benedict Cumberbatch, he's menacing, but also vaguely generic.  I don't believe that this is Mr. Cumberbatch's fault.  Khan, though an iconic character, is problematic in our own P.C. world.  While dark haired, it would be impossible to think of Khan 2013 and anything but a proper Englishman.  Cumberbatch's portrayal reminded me a bit of Alan Rickman in the first Die Hard, if that villain had known mixed martial arts.   But the Khan of the past was from northern India, "possibly a Sikh."  Montalban's black hair was grown out into a ponytail, with dark makeup applied to his already light tan complexion, emphasizing the character's Subcontinental roots, and the actor's Latin American accent making Khan exotic and possibly even more menacing to North American audiences of the 1960's.   There is no doubt in my mind that Khan's cultural background was buried this time out because of the fear of offending people of Middle Eastern or Pakistani lineage, especially since today's Khan is billed as a terrorist (he was originally a despotic war lord).

Benedict Cumberbatch as Khan (2013)

On the one hand I can understand wanting to avoid stereotypes.   Big budget summer block busters, even one as smart as Into Darkness is, are not known for subtlety.  If they had kept to the original back story viewers would probably just have seen a man of color described as a terrorist and thought Arab Muslim by default.  As an American of Italian descent who is sick of seeing Italians portrayed as mafiosi in movies all the time, I can understand Arabs and Muslims being upset at getting the terrorist label put on them so often in the popular culture.  But not only isn't Khan an Arab or a Muslim, he's not a stereotype of any kind.  He not only possesses superior physical strength, but a superior intellect as well.  In Space Seed he quickly learns the Enterprise's technical manuals, using his new found knowledge to take control of the ship; the twentieth century man out smarting his 23rd century foes at every turn.  In Wrath he's no mere bomb thrower, but proves to be a great tactical mind.  In both appearances he is manipulative, cunning and ruthless, with his intellectual refinement extending further than the battlefield.  In the course of both adventures he quotes Milton, Melville and Talleyrand (though the last credited to the Klingons).

Ricardo Montalban as Khan (1982)

The Khan of today possesses all the cunning and ruthlessness of the 1967/1982 version, but none of the depth.  The former Khan at first wants to take the Enterprise so he can conquer new worlds.  This was not just a vain attempt at glory.  He believes firmly that his way really does bring order to chaos, and will lead humanity into a golden age of supermen and women.  If the weak and "inferior" need to be subjugated, possibly eliminated (though he is noted as one of the few war lords who didn't engage in genocide) it is only right.  Only the strong have a right to lead, and possibly survive.  Later, when he finds an opportunity for revenge against Captain (now admiral) Kirk, who foiled his plan and exiled him to a deserted planet, he becomes obsessed with not just defeating his enemy but annihilating him, even when it becomes clear that he will destroy himself in the process.  He is a man driven by ego, blinded by his own abilities, so driven by a single goal he loses the big picture and in the end everything he was hoping to gain.

Khan 2013 is a terrorist or sorts, but with little complexity beyond seeking revenge and power for its own sake.  A shabby shadow of what the character once was.

I said the movie is smart, and I do believe it is.  Questions are asked that relate to the War of Terror, such as what are the limits that should be observed in pursuing an enemy so as not to lose your own humanity in the process.  The theme of self sacrifice, the idea that the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few, or the one, is explored as in Wrath, but with a twist.  The main characters, especially Spok, Uhura and Kirk are not simply retreads of the originals, but are developed a bit.  As I wrote before, there's more special effects expertise, and action in general, in these J.J. Abrams films than before, but they did leave some room for the ideas, which is good.  But in the quest to avoid a P.C. controversy I wish they had simply thought up a new villain instead of sterilizing an classic one.